Transcript Office of Education – Code N Space Grant Council Meeting Diane D.

Office of Education – Code N
Space Grant Council Meeting
Diane D. DeTroye
Associate Manager
Space Grant and EPSCoR Programs
March 21, 2003
General Announcements and Updates
•
•
•
•
Magui Cardona, Space Grant Administrative Fellow
NASA connections
Reduced Gravity Student Flight Opportunity
Budget
• 1st increment sent to Goddard
• 2nd increment – Received OK to fund
• Additional funds
• Space Grant website
• EPSCoR Conference
• Space Grant connection to the new Education
Initiatives
Geospatial Extension Program
(“Earth Grant”)
• 11 States on board
– AL, AZ, CT, MS, ND, NE, NH, OH, OK, UT, VA
– Range of program types and structures
• Train users and extension agents in the field,
use remote sensing data to solve statespecific challenges
• Strong potential of a near-term solicitation to add
a modest number of states
– Currently engaged in discussions with Office of
Earth Science and USDA CSREES (Cooperative
Extension)
Enterprise Organization
Office of Education  Code N
Education Advisory
Council
Associate Administrator
Executive Officer
Secretary
Deputy Associate Administrator
Liaisons:
Public Affairs
Legislative Affairs
Legal
Equal Opportunity
Human Resources
Senior Policy
Advisor
AAA for Org
Effectiveness and
Accountability
DAA for
Education
Programs
Center Education
Programs
Technology &
Products Office
Elementary &
Secondary Education
Division
Earth Science
Education Programs
Education Support
(Informal) Education
Division
Space Science
Education Programs
Educator
Astronaut
Office
Higher
Education
Division
Biological & Physical
Research Education
Programs
Minority
University
Programs
Aerospace Technology
Education Programs
Space Flight
Education Programs
15th Year Review
Desired Results and Outcomes
 Agency-level
 Demonstrate to NASA’s constituents and
stakeholders the impact and overall merit of
the Space Grant program in each state as well
as the overall benefit to the Agency
 Programmatic level
 Be able to make informed decisions about
future allocations of Space Grant resources
15th Year Evaluation Components
I. Program Performance and Results
II. Network Participation and
Responsiveness
III. Affiliate Survey
Outcome
Program Performance and Results
Overall Impact of the Consortia
• Within the state
• To NASA
Program
Reporting
Interpretation
& Integration
of Findings
•Management
•Fellowships/Scholarships
•Research
•Higher Education
•Pre-college
•Public Service: General
Public/External Relations
Identification
of Strengths
& Weaknesses
15th Year Methodology
• Program Performance and Results (PPR)
– Criteria based on Space Grant legislation, national
program objectives, and the Space Grant Strategic Plan
1996-2000
– Synthesis of the past 5 years (1998-2002)
– Reviewed by Directors, Space Grant Staff, UAOs,
Others
• Reviewers will receive training after PPR submission date
– Reviewed by Directors not in your grant category
– Submitted and reviewed through a secure website
– CMIS data will be analyzed by you as part of the PPR
• 5-year data tables will be created and available on the
website
Contents of the PPR
• Executive Summary
• National Program Emphases (diversity, NASA ties,
industry relations, community/technical colleges,
competition, etc.)
• Program Elements – description, analysis, impact
and results
–
–
–
–
–
–
Consortium Management
Fellowship/Scholarship
Research Infrastructure
Higher Education
Precollege
Public Service: General Public and External Relations
II. Network Participation and Responsiveness
• Review by NASA Program Management
• Will include
– Meeting participation – national and regional
meetings
– Compliance with deadlines (CMIS, Annual
Reports, special requests)
– Website review
III. Affiliate Survey
• Design, development, methodology, and analysis assistance from
Western Michigan University - Center for Evaluation
• Involves all affiliate and affiliate-like contacts listed in CMIS
• 30 Questions
– Includes demographics, consortium goals and objectives,
fellowship/scholarship program, consortium communication,
consortium leadership, program impact, NASA and national
program information
– Will be pilot tested prior to dissemination
• Approx. 20 minutes to complete
• Web-based administration (Zoomerang)
• Anonymous responses
– However, will track who has responded
• Encourage all affiliates to participate
Possible outcomes for each consortium
Passing
5 Year grant
Pass all 3 components
1 Year grant (probation)
Pass the PPR, fail to meet expectations on
the Network and/or Affiliate Survey
Fail to meet expectations
Recompetition within the state
Fail to meet expectations on the PPR
Milestones and Targets
Program Performance and Results
Review/Discussion of Draft Criteria with
SG Committee
Draft Criteria and blank CMIS tables
posted on Website
Final Criteria/CMIS tables
PPR Preparation Period
Reviewer Training
PPR Review Period
April 2003
April 2003
TBD
120 days
TBD
TBD
Milestones and Targets
Affiliate Survey
Pilot Test
(Identify Participants, Teleconference,
Follow up discussion, finalize survey)
Survey Released
Follow up with Non-respondents (Email, Phone)
Survey Completion Deadline
Network Participation and Responsiveness
Program Management Review
April 2003
April 2003
April 2003
April 2003
During PPR
Preparation Period
15th Year Evaluation Results
Consortium Feedback
–
–
–
–
PPR Aggregate Score Report
Network Participation and Responsiveness Score Report
Affiliate Survey Report
Evaluation Results Letter
Space Grant Representation
Space Grant Fellows:
AL
ID
AR
JM Wersinger
Dave Atkinson
Warfield Teague
Space Grant Committee Members:
CO
KY
ME
NE
NM
NY
WA
Elaine Hanson
Richard Hackney
Terry Shehata
Micheala Schaff
Pat Hynes
Yervant Terzian
Janice DeCosmo
MT
Bill Hiscock (ex-officio)